To think that the opposite of woke, is asleep?

[QuertyGirl]

Following on from a conversation with my elderly (but very with it) Aunt the other day.

She stated that she was anti-woke and I asked her if that just meant that she wasn't interested in equality, social justice any more. Being literally "asleep" to this sort of thing, as opposed to being awake or "woke". She definitely is not asleep to that stuff.

Another conversation with a (middle aged like me) friend and we agreed that when woke is used as an insult, it's no different to the old "political correctness gone mad" cry.

So, is anti-woke to be willingly asleep to stuff?

Just to say, anyone reading tThis thread about being ‘wor’ who can see the conflicts with women’s rights with regards to some aspects of the demand for trans rights, please consider signing this petition to get at least a debate into parliament regarding the equality act.

Why? Because a group within the UK population has insisted there is no conflict yet only this week, there was a male in the female prison in Edinburgh. And despite telling us they were in segregation’ That could mean in a small group of women still for part of fhe day.

www.mumsnet.com/talk/petitions_noticeboard/4722618-petition-to-update-the-equality-act-thread-2

Agree about the DM dog whistle.
They have a series going on in the paper they've titled "War on Woke" - nearly every article is them having a problem with racism being spoken about or attempted to tackle.
They seem to use the word woke for racism a lot.

I do wonder at some posters ability to see casual racism though.

And yet, have you ever been able to show where the feminists who write for the DM are wrong?

I don’t recall you ever attempting?

You may disagree with that series, but I wonder at framing the DM as a conservative ‘dog whistle’? Seems more like an uninformed opinion when there are feminists writing for the DM because no one else will publish their work. (Which is what happens, by the way, when The Guardian becomes a hostile environment for feminists)

It is all too easy to use a throw away blanket statement that will denounce any article published there, that is not necessarily true.

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11677219/amp/Trans-rapist-female-prison-proves-legal-sacrificed-vulnerable-women-Julie-Bindel-says.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-10806353/amp/JULIE-BINDEL-explains-female-students-bullied-hearing-feminists.html

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11577761/amp/If-Starmer-doesnt-stand-women-trans-issue-Ill-never-vote-Labour-says-JULIE-BINDEL.html

Do you believe Julie Bindel is a ‘conservative’?

I have no time for anyone who is not black or mixed race calling themselves "woke
I think it's very rare that people actually call themselves woke.
That's been my experience, anyway and from what I've seen on social media and in RL
It seems to nearly always be used as an insult if you speak up about any subjects outside of being white and straight.

This also makes me cringe.

And no, I wouldn't describe myself as 'woke' at all - it's a ridiculous term (since its been twisted away from it's original meaning), but the self-proclaimed 'anti-woke' crowd are just as bad.

You've all been sipping the Kool Aid, it's just different flavours.

It also functions as a Daily Mail conservative dog whistle.

It is always enlightening though to see the word ‘dogwhistle’ used on MN. It certainly lives up to its new meaning too when you look at the sometimes polarised attitudes of those who usually use it.

Its use is usually to shame a group it has been used against. All too often without any further contribution that has been thought through and supported.

The term ‘dog whistle’ is very much now its own ‘dog whistle’.

Its use is usually to shame a group it has been used against. All too often without any further contribution that has been thought through and supported.

But this is how I see the term 'woke' often used in practice on this site.

Again, I would not describe myself as 'woke' but the fact that my first comment on this thread (to say that I can't take anyone using 'woke' as an insult seriously) was met with a terse reply about women with penises was quite telling. It's been assumed that because I find the term cringeworthy that I must be woke myself and a 'barbarian at the gate', and presumably in agreement with the statement that women can have penises. None of which are true.

With all its masterful uses, it seems only those who use the term 'woke' (both as an insult and as an identity) know the meaning, group or groups they have in mind while using it.

It's so vague at this point, it's almost clever to use it as a catch all term for anyone someone disagrees with or someone who says something popular/unpopular (depending on the side you're on).

And I agree with you in part.

However, it is also a point of discussion though that ‘woke’ has been used, to put it in hyperbole, as a ‘weapon’ to silence people.

I agree that words these days have been redefined in a few different ways.

Tolerant, woke, hate, violence, right wing have been used as blunt tools to shape discussion where one group doesn’t want discussion. The group they want to accuse of wrongthink. To be considered the polar opposite to.

Take OP wanting to discuss a theory from a time when the words ‘tolerant’ and ‘intolerant’ had recognisable meanings. And the irony of declaring something not a ‘study’ in the narrow meaning of an academic experimental paper that is peer reviewed! (Having seen ‘studies’ that have been ‘peer reviewed’ I suspect that ‘peer reviewed’ now just means read by someone of the same thought these days)

I do understand that people reaction immediately to the use of these words and in ways you don’t expect if you have not seen the way they are used. It is all part of the tribalism, the absolutist and polarised point of view that is today’s debating style.

@Helleofabore

"Take OP wanting to discuss a theory from a time when the words ‘tolerant’ and ‘intolerant’ had recognisable meanings. And the irony of declaring something not a ‘study’ in the narrow meaning of an academic experimental paper that is peer reviewed! (Having seen ‘studies’ that have been ‘peer reviewed’ I suspect that ‘peer reviewed’ now just means read by someone of the same thought these days)"

It was a bad power point presentation from a GB News commentator.

It had plenty of data, but that's just the start of proper, academic enquiry.

What GB news commentator?

Who do you believe did the research!

The bloke who in the link.

Anyway, I would genuinely be interested in any actual studies that suggest that young people are less tolerant.

And for those pouring scorn on him, Poppers theory is still very relevant.

All of this to me feels like an attempt to throw out the entire, academic paradigm out of convenience

And so multiple researchers finding the same trend (both self reported and reported by others) across projects done from
different viewpoints doesn’t qualify as worthy of consideration in your view?

Because???? You have this expectation that the only truth can be detected in a peer reviewed academic study.

Please post your evidence that Dr Frank Luntz is ‘a GB presenter’.

@Helleofabore

I didn't say he was a presenter.

www.gbnews.uk/shows/wokeism-culture-wars-britains-cultural-divisions-will-soon-catch-up-with-those-in-the-usa-says-dr-frank-luntz/110736

Dr Frank Luntz is a US political polling expert. This is what he does for a living.

“Luntz has appeared as a consultant or panel member on a number of television news shows, including The Colbert Report, Capital Gang, Good Morning America, Hannity, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Meet the Press, PBS NewsHour, Nightline, The O'Reilly Factor, Real Time with Bill Maher, and The Today Show. He has written op-eds for publications such as The Financial Times, The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post. In addition to his work in the United States, Luntz also provides analysis for British news programmes such as Newsnight.”

“He was an adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania from 1989 until 1996[13] and also taught at George Washington University and Harvard University.”

Normally I don’t post stuff from Wikipedia, but I can no longer be arsed to post other sources.

Feel free to discredit his work other ways.

However, you are claiming you want ‘peer reviewed study’ yet you have repeatedly tried to denounce an academic’s work that was posted as support of A trend because? Why?

Would you like to comment on whether you think there is now an issue of people’s perception on what is ‘tolerant’ and what is not?

And how some people who call themselves ‘tolerant’ seek to prevent those who have legitimate concerns from discussing them in public through deplatforming, preventing access or just through intimidation?

I stand corrected.

Maybe you can answer the questions in my post above this one ?

Or would you like to discredit Dr Luntz some more.

Shall we call him a ‘Washington Post’ commentator or a ‘New York Time commentator’. Or a ‘Harvard Lecturer’. Or an ‘Oxford doctorate holder’?

He's a commentator for hire (I work in a related field and would be loathe to pass his stuff).

Academic studies are done the way they are for a reason: centuries (literally) of scrutiny, experimentation, discussion, wrong turns, back tracking, direction changes and relentlessly pushing the limits of reason and understanding.

Whatever you think you are achieving through your denouncement of his work, I don’t think you will be convincing many.

Yes, he is a ‘commentator for hire’. He is an expert on studying changes in public opinion…. and he discusses public opinion for public consumption.

The point remains he and others have been attempting to point out is that ‘tolerance’ is now not recognisable as ‘tolerance’.

You seem unable to engage with his work and others that have pointed to the same trend.

Or maybe the example of Carly May Kavanagh screaming fascist at a baby is how people who pride themselves as ‘tolerant’ want to define themselves.

I look forward to seeing how people discuss Popper with you, while considering that fact.

Look,

You state there are studies that support a particular position on a subject.

It is entirely logically to then be asked to produce them.

And… again. You seem to refuse to engage with what has been posted.

Why? Because you don’t believe they reach the bar for the meaning of the word ‘study’ in your mind.

If I had posted just that one, I would have said.. ok. Whatever. But I posted others too with various sponsors and various intentions. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence too.

Shall I start posting more videos of ‘tolerant’ people who are proudly intimidating others as a ‘protest’ when the people they are intimidating are women? Many of which are survivors of male violence in its many guises. I don’t want to, because it is all out there and easy to find. I can start with the males who chalked ‘suck my dick‘ outside a women’s conference and tried to shout down a roll call of women murdered by males. Those male people were celebrated as the very height of tolerance by their group. I mean, it is anecdotal.

But pretty much indisputable.

Yet, you have simply doubled down on ‘it is not a study’ and not engaged with the purpose for which it was posted.

And you still wonder why people won’t engage with you on Popper’s , despite you seeming to not acknowledge there has been a shift where ‘tolerance’ has now been shown to be used as a self-described label by those who are intolerant?

@Helleofabore

You can find people on the internet to agree with almost any standpoint. You can also find extremists in any large group of humans.

That is why I'm asking for something more balanced from a credible source.